HC Deb 10 July 1978 vol 953 cc1051-3
Mr. Stanbrook

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order concerns the incident which occurred in the Chamber of the House last Thursday after which it was reported that you had ordered that the people concerned should be handed over to the police for prosecution in the magistrates' court. I will say nothing which will be in breach of the sub judice rule. However, if a contempt is given in the face of a court it is almost always followed by immediate imprisonment, sometimes for a long time. A studied or deliberate insult to the House of Commons should surely be treated no less seriously.

There was, perhaps, a humorous aspect to what happened on Thursday but it may not always be so. Because of our security arrangements here it may not always be possible to prevent someone with a real or fancied grievance from doing damage to this place far exceeding the damage that was done to the carpet in the Chamber last Thursday. I believe that there is a facility in the Victoria Tower for dealing with miscreants of this kind. Should it not be put into use?

Mr. Dalyell

Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I hope that hon. Members will not pursue in public any questions concerning the security of the Chamber. I am about to reply to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook).

Mr. Dalyell

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one of those who was involved the other day I am aware that there may be serious criticism of those involved with our security. Some of us would like to point out, since the issue has been raised, that there is surely a difference between soft objects, however offensive, and hard objects that would necessarily involve a bomb or something of that kind. There is a difference, and we think that some generosity ought to be shown to those involved with our security who have a difficult enough job.

Mr. Emery

Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Perhaps it would help the hon. Member if I reply to the original point of order raised by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). Then, I hope, the House will feel satisfied.

The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give me notice of his point of order. Under Standing Order No. 113, the Serjeant at Arms has the standing instruction from the House to take into his custody any stranger who may be reported to him as having misconducted himself or herself in the Galleries. This method of dealing with the usual form of disturbance in the Public Galleries has the general approval of the House. Certainly I am not aware of any dissatisfaction with it on behalf of the House.

For a disturbance of a more serious nature, as last Thursday night's incident undoubtedly was, the House could indeed proceed by way of its jurisdiction in matters of contempt. I am sure, however, that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that such a course would be complicated. The House should also have regard to the limitations which are, in practice, imposed upon its penal powers.

It was my view in this case that it was better that the offenders should be handed over to the civil powers so that the offence could be dealt with by a court of law. I notified the House that I had instructed the Serjeant at Arms so to do. This was the course followed by my predecessor in July 1970 when there was another serious incident. I am convinced that it was the right course to adopt last week. It may well be that those responsible for the security of the House will want to look again at the various issues which arose out of last week's incident.

Mr. Emery

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to pursue this matter but there is one point which has not been touched upon. It is known that the persons concerned were, quite rightly, handed over to the police, as you have said. There appears to have been some humour made of the House if the charge—after what was quite obviously a major breach of the peace—is to be published as being criminal damage of the carpet of the Chamber. That seems to put the whole incident into a ludicrous light when it is very serious. Would you look again at what action might be taken after these persons have left the jurisdiction of the Serjeant at Arms and been handed over to the civil authority?

Mr. Speaker

The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that that charge is not, of necessity, the only one. That is the first charge that is published. We would be wise to leave matters there. We do not know what course will be taken.

Mr. Skinner

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I point out, although I may be in a minority on this matter, that we ought not to get terribly hysterical about the lack of security for Members of Parliament in the light of other matters? May I draw attention to the fact there are millions of people who suffer from a lack of security in one form or another, people whom we represent throughout the country? There are people on waiting lists for kidney machines, old people dying of hypothermia in winter. These are things that we, as politicians, might be able to deal with. I think that we should bring our attention to these matters before we become too hysterical about something that has occurred only twice in the course of the eight years that I have been a Member of Parliament. Let us face it, the people concerned were only trying to get a fresh motion before the House.

Mr. Speaker

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I noticed how fast he moved last Thursday.